MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2548247921 · doi:10.1109/bmse.2012.6466221

Manufacturing high strength and dimensional stable strand panels via optimizing panel manufacturing conditions

2012· article· en· W2548247921 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hui Wan, Xiangming Wang, Kevin Groves

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWood Treatment and Properties
Canadian institutionsFPInnovations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOriented strand boardEngineered woodEngineeringRaw materialManufacturing engineeringStructural engineeringCivil engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aspen has traditionally been used as the only feedstock for OSB panel production in Canada over the past 30 years. With aspen becoming less available to most Canadian OSB mills, the OSB industry has to use alternative wood species such as white birch and sugar maple as a partial substitute for aspen in OSB production. This has a significant influence on OSB panel performance. To address this issue, a significant amount of research work has recently been performed to engineer panel structure based on the wood strength and wood density features, as well as panel manufacturing technologies. As a result, stronger and more dimensionally stable strand panels can be made from mixed wood species which are especially appreciated for flooring substrate applications. This paper has also reviewed the most recent progress in understanding the key factors affecting OSB panel performance and new technologies developed to produce high-performance OSB panels. The technical challenges in further increasing the use of birch and maple in OSB manufacturing has also been discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWood Treatment and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207